Search This Blog

Microsoft is Cable: Part Deux Edition

Last month I reposted an article I wrote about the Xbox really being a no apologies, cable system. Yesterday, the New York Times wrote a story about Microsoft's commissioning of original, linear content for the 360. Another cable system building looking kind of a move. If Comcast and Time Warner Cable are not awake yet I don't know what other alarm bells they need.

The move speaks strongly to the console wars as well as the cable world.

Microsoft v. Sony

When looking at a comparison of Microsoft to Sony, this story gives us a well enough defined view of corporate genomes to win the genomics Xprize. I said this before, but just a brief recap. . .

Sony's corporate DNA dictates selling boxes. I will sell you a Playstation 2 and then in five years I will tell you it is obsolete and you have to buy a new one. Conveniently, in the last two console cycles, obsolescence coincided with the launch of a new media format (even the first one provided audiophile approved method for playing audio cds). What are the odds? Sony loves physical media. The only thing better than moving hardware is collecting royalties on pieces of laser readable plastic. The box is driving Blu-ray sales, which in turn drives revenue to the core business. Good today, but this will turn into a dangerous legacy.

Microsoft's DNA dictates malignant growth. In case the word seems harsh, let me clarify with this definition: "a malignancy is not self-limited in its growth, is capable of invading into adjacent tissues, and may be capable of spreading to distant tissues (metastasizing)." The 360 came into our homes as a game console. Then it offered an invitation to serve media from a PC, then it offered to share content on portable devices, then it offered movies and television shows and the list goes on. Today, it promises to provide original content. Its’ position in the home is growing well beyond a game console. Sure, Sony is connected, but no one can tell me the PS3 on line experience rivals the 360. 360 is a window into the on line world. The PS3 provides the experience, but the focus remains on physical media.

When I consider the physical media relative to downloadable aspects of these boxes I think about an experience I had with my son when I excitedly pulled him into a room to see the Indiana Jones arcade game running on my newly installed MAME. Every aspect of the standup arcade machine, along with hours of misspent youth, were being channeled through my laptop.

[cue Courtship of Eddie's Father theme music]

"So, before consoles, we used to go to the arcade and play games. This was one of my favorites." I continued to whip Thuggee guards.

"You went to a place to play that?" Kevin asked

"Oh yeah. In between classes at UCLA I would go to Ackerman Union and they had one of these machines in the arcade."

"Arcade?""Yeah, a place with a bunch of standup game machines. You would go there and put quarters in the machine to play."

"You paid money?"

"Yeah." My first Indy died on screen as I was talking.

"Did you put the quarter in now?"

"No, you get three lives." Down goes the next one.

"Now did you put the quarter in?" Not yet . . . just as the third Indy died tragically in a lava flow.

"Now?"

"Yes, now I would have to put another quarter in."

"That's dumb."

Some day he and I will have the same conversation about physical media.

Microsoft v. the Cable business

Microsoft's advantage over cable is significant as well. Cable companies must pay for the boxes to be installed in people's homes. We buy 360s and subsidize R&D through game purchases. Cable companies compete each other by using a shotgun approach to broadcast everything under the sun to every subscriber. They must secure a lot of edge case content to broadcast into every micro, nano, niche interest known to man. I have never even surfed through the Golf Channel. Those 30 or so Spanish language channels? Nope, and there are a lot more. My cable service is kind of like British food in the 90's. Sure we give you a lot of uninteresting and possibly overripe content, but just carve off the bad bits and there is still plenty of good stuff underneath. Microsoft is able to narrowcast to a homogenous user base so they can post content and serve on an as needed basis. The audience programs their own channels. Same variety, less bandwidth. Relative to a cable company, they are heavy on storage, low on serving. Oh yeah, and they don't even pay for the pipes. We have to pay for the ISP to connect us to the subscription service for which we pay a monthly fee. That is enough to make and MSO break down in tears.

Finally, and most significantly is cable is weighed down by its legacy. Microsoft launched just a few years ago. So they are able to roll out with IP addressable boxes with powerful processors and built in hard drives. Every time Microsoft identifies a new feature, they are able to download an update to the installed user base. Every time the cable companies realize consumers want things like TiVo, they have to source it, engineer it into the system, and then figure out how to get consumers to accept it. This puts them years behind the market. The more incremental boxes in the field, the larger the variation in the installed base. Stealing a page from Apple - the first 360 dev kits were Macs - Microsoft's installed base is homogenous and the system is closed.

All of this leads to the reason why a content provider like Mr. Safran would go to Microsoft, rather than Comcast, or Time Warner Cable. Right now, according to Videogamechartz.com there are 17.94 million 360s installed in the world. There is no cable company in the world with a homogenous installed base of IP addressable set top boxes which can even come close to the computing power of a 360. If I want to make the most robust, most compelling, like nothing you can see anywhere else content, do I go to the big, fat, juicy, powerful, centrally controlled installed base of 360's, or the disparate, anemic installed base of set top boxes where I program for the lowest common denominator?

Sure, but the content just sits on a server waiting for download, it nothing like a network. Silly boys and girls, do you really think it is going to stay like that for long? How long do you think it will be before you can preset the back loading of the content so prime time viewing becomes my prime time and not NBC's prime time? As a want it now audience, if I can schedule my downloads, have exclusive content, network content, and content from my PC, do you think I am going to turn on my cable box, or my 360? The 360 is more like modern day British food. I only get the good bits and the rest stays in the kitchen.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Every once in a while you come across an act of Hypocrisy so egregious, you have to laugh. I read an article on game politics about a mutual fund called The Timothy Plan, which call itself a family of mutual funds offering individuals a biblical choice when it comes to investing. If you are concerned with the moral issues (abortion, pörnography, anti-family entertainment, non-married lifestyles, alcohol, tobacco and gambling) that are destroying children and families you have come to the right place.

The Timothy Plan® avoids investing in companies that are involved in practices contrary to Judeo-Christian principles. Our goal is to recapture traditional American values. We are America's first pro-life, pro-family, biblically-based mutual fund group.. The fund issued a press release indicating it would not invest Take Two Interactive because "it is releasing another video game that contains extreme sexual and violent content." Curiously, the release did not mention the …

Yes, I am still ranting about critics. The tension between creators and critics is as old as narrative itself. I'm confident Plato's critics were late comers to the process. But as we enter the season for release of highly anticipated, high production value, very expensive games the critics seem to be in a bad mood - or, the industry is releasing a string of the worst games in history. I don't think it's the latter because the games seem to be selling very well. Brothers in Arms is getting an equal number of scores 50s and 60s to its 90s. Fracture and Mercenaries 2 are faring even less well and I already talked about The Force Unleashed. The first reaction is to grab the critics by the lapels and scream "Have you ever tried to make a game?" I guess it's a common refrain across all creative media. Even though it would feel really good, let's take a look at the issue. There seems be a growing divide between what the critics are looking for…

After realizing my call for the destruction of Gamestop was for naught, I had to come to terms with the need to accept their business model as a fact of life - even though they are killing the geese who so lovingly innovate, fund, develop and so lovingly deliver golden eggs into their grubby, cold, clammy, unappreciative hands. I even moderated a panel with Gamestop's CEO, and kept my opinion to myself . . . mostly. But do I really have to accept their repeated efforts to persuade us their actions are good for the business. Does the crack dealer stand on the corner and say he is enhancing the junkie's lives, or does he just take their money? Gamestop senior executives do understand that if they have to keep repeating that their actions are good for the industry, they are probably not good and constant repetition will not make it so.

In a recent interview in Edge, Mike Mauler, EVP of Gamestop International said:

Keith Boesky has been involved in the game business for a very long time. His tenure includes, attorney, president of a publisher, agent and general advisor. His company, Boesky & Company is responsible for selling more intellectual property and developers into the game business than any other company in the world. His wife, Sari, provides endless support which makes her very tired, and often times his son thinks he is pretty cool.